Straighten up there sir! Eyes forward, shoulders back! Good. Now . .a-ten-shun to detail. lol. I posted that response and I quoted a passage written by John McGowan.
Anyway, thanks much for explaining your perspective. Now if you can only make the leap beyond determinism you may well be forging paths that blaze into new territory. :) I won't hesitate to say that the idea of fate is incorrect and a little silly. The nature of the "patterns" is that they are all always being created anew. Linear time is a feature of physical realities but not of primary consciousness. I sometimes wonder if the originators of fate didn't mean something else - that reason/rationality are not the mechanisms for choice on the level of the "pattern". If they did mean that .then they were correct.
Thank you for this stimulating comment, Saiko. Please allow me to defend my position.
There are a couple levels on which I stand on determinism and these stem mainly from Eastern thinking, but also from current notions in science and math, but definitely not from the silly, simple-minded perspective of Western philosophy (e.g. the question "what is free will" as discussed in the kind of philosophy classes Pat Churchland conducts). I could get a little technical about it. It has to do with how networks function. In a network, the individual nodes are not independent, but are all mutually dependent. Without the proper math background, you will probably LOVE the term used in dynamics: it's called the "slaving" principle. I kid you not. But it is all mathematical and not a qualitative idea (please let me know if you want further info, I can provide references). It is analogous to how chaos theory misuses the word "chaos". Chaotic dynamical systems are not chaotic at all, but are 100% deterministic. Similarly with network dynamics, where the nodes are "slaved" to the total system.
Technically, in terms of physics, when things act independently, their total action is called "superposition" and is modeled adequately by linear addition. This can describe, for example, how a car or oven works. When things are dependent upon each other, their mutual interactions are nonlinear. Networks are nonlinear in how they act because the nodes mutually interact with each other. This is how bodies and ecosystems and the climate act. This is the type of determinism I am talking about, or one way to think of it at least.
I can give a concrete example that might make the idea plain. Your body. Your body is made of many organs. The organs can be thought of as network nodes that are slaved to the overall function of the body. The heart, liver, muscles, brain etc do not all do their own thing. They are in no sense "free". Each serves a very specific, and unique function in the whole system. The loss of any of the pieces means the end of the system. Hindus call this same idea "dharma". If one of the pieces of the body starts to act "free", starts to act independent of the whole body, we call the condition "cancer" and it kills the body.
I submit that this is the general condition of all relative existence, what anon is calling "Maya", which is a proper term to use. All of the different things that exist in manifestation, from galaxies to planets, to animals, to plants and people and organs in bodies, to cells, to atoms and molecules, to quarks and whatever is below these, all of these are nodes in a vast incomprehensible network we call "existence". Every node conditions every other node. This is not a new idea even in the West. Mach said it, which was Einstein's basis for formulating general relativity.
For example: pick your nose right now. Please do it. And then know that you affected a galaxy outside of the Earth's light cone, and also affected sublime realities in the deepest planes of existence, without even knowing you did so, just by picking your nose. You may laugh, but what I just said is true. Every single thing you do affects every other single thing that exists. It is just how it is all put together.
So, the determinism I am talking about means that everyone has a unique and extremely specific role to play in the whole system. As souls, we are analogous to the organs in our physical body. Lose one and the whole system stops (which is, in principle, impossible. Thank God for that).
None of this is philosophical. It is physics, and chemistry and biology. It is empirical. It is psychology and sociology, and it is yoga. There are invisible forces acting between all identifiable pieces of creation, moving them to and fro and moving them to exactly where they are supposed to be.
Now, given this situation, it does not preclude us, in our minds, from being ignorant of this vast cosmic network of interactions, and our place in it. It does not preclude of from having the idea in our minds that we are free to act as we please. This reality is perfectly allowed and our entire society is a testament to this approach to living.
But just because we can think whatever we want does not mean whatever we think it true. This type of thinking is false with respect to how God made the universe.
I do not think it is the most intelligent way to think. I think it is more intelligent to slowly, ever so slowly, seek to be aware of these invisible forces and then figure out how to act in harmony with them, instead of living under the delusion we can do whatever we want, and then getting all upset when things don't go our way. The idea of "fate" that you express is simply a cry-baby reaction to one's ignorance and delusions, and of not having even a faint sense of the interconnectedness of everything. So, fate, used in this sense is not a little silly, it is a lot silly, and is a sign of total ignorance of the way things are.
We are most free when we are what we are supposed to be. That means we move with the whole, know our place in the whole. This is at least the ideal. This is why I often think to myself that little Christian prayer "God give me the wisdom..."
So, my point is, there is an intelligent approach to determinism. Do not let stupid ideas blind your from smarter ideas. Dawkins thinks he is smart because he can intellectually knock down stupid ideas of what God is. He is not smart enough to understand smart ideas about God, like, for example, the stuff Leibniz wrote, or what Cantor wrote, or what Schrodinger wrote. Please don't be like Dawkins. Like Alex says, people like that are just intellectual bullies and they are not smart enough to know anything important, and that is why they act the way they do.
Thanks, Saiko, for providing the occasion for letting me rant!
My very best wishes,
Don